150. The Court notes that, through the Armed Forces Command, the State required compliance with additional requirements to those expressly contemplated in Ministerial Resolution No. 316/09, without indicating why they were necessary before providing the requested information. The military authority also did not respond to the clarifications requested by the Flores Bedregal sisters on the requirements (supra para. 64). In response, the Flores Bedregal sisters filed a constitutional amparo action that was declared inadmissible in limine by the domestic courts. 151. Consequently, the Court considers that the State did not guarantee access to information to the Flores Bedregal sisters, in accordance with Ministerial Resolution No. 316/09 that authorized the access of victims of military dictatorships and their families to the archives, public records, and documents of the Armed Forces, and hindered access to information relevant to determining the truth of what happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. C. General Conclusion 152. The Court considers that, in cases of forced disappearance of persons such as the one perpetrated in the context of the interruption of democracy by a coup d'état, access to the information contained in the archives of the Armed Forces is indispensable to clarify State responsibility and satisfy the right to the truth. To this end, the authorities must declassify files and documents of the security forces to obtain evidence or clues relevant to the investigation and clarification of human rights violations. The authorities must also guarantee access to information for the families of victims of forced disappearance, as well as for society as a whole, in order to ensure the right to the truth. In the instant case, the judicial and administrative obstacles faced by the Flores Bedregal sisters in their requests for access to information on the whereabouts of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal constitute violations of Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 153. In relation to the Commission's allegation that Article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces is incompatible with the obligation to adapt domestic law to the norms of the Convention, the Court argues that the precept on the confidentiality of information provided by the Commander in Chief restricts the right of access to information in cases in which it seeks to clarify the forced disappearance of persons. Therefore, this rule is contrary to the standards established by the case law of this Court on access to information by victims of serious human rights violations and, consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to adapt its domestic law established in Article 2 of the same instrument. 154. In addition, the Court finds that the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information provided by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces affects the independent exercise of the judicial function, since it constitutes an obstacle to the use of such information by the judicial authorities in the framework of the processes presented for its deliberation. Although, according to Article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces, and as occurred in this case, the military authorities must deliver the information requested by the judicial authorities, the information classified as "inviolable secret" is kept confidential and, therefore, the judicial authority is prevented from transferring it to the parties to the process and using it as part of the argumentation. In view of the foregoing, by virtue of the iura novit curia 46